Columbia University's pro-Palestinian protests and the nationwide movement they've inspired have accentuated numerous political divisions. Intergenerational, and especially intra-Democratic Party, divisions over the Gaza conflict provide politicos with a lot to think about: Will America's posture have to change? How may the protests impact upcoming elections?
Questions like these provide commentators with a wellspring of punchy headlines. But for all of the friction, especially for folks in the media, there is one thing that shouldn't be causing much division, and that is our stance on freedom of expression.
Across the country, concerns over attacks on free expression are growing. It's no longer assaults on the mere spirit of free speech or the establishment of institutional/cultural "safetyist" doctrines that pose a threat. We now face the possibility of government-sponsored limits on expression.
The House is set to vote today on the Antisemitism Awareness Act. The bill is destined to cause havoc within the Democratic Party, with progressives and a lone Republican, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, already conveying their opposition.
"There's a bipartisan effort in Congress to equate criticism of the secular state of Israel to violence toward Jewish people in America," Massie said on X. "The latter is illegal and the former is protected speech, but if a false equivalency is established, it will be forbidden to criticize Israel."
Massie is not alone. More than 100 Israeli and international civil society groups found a similar resolution, proposed in the United Nations last year, problematic due to its broad definition of antisemitism.
They have a point. Under the bill, the government would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when enforcing the Civil Rights Act. That definition includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor"; "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"; and "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Notwithstanding the validity of this definition, the legal dangers of including all of its elements in law vis-à-vis free expression are real. Singling out Israel's claim for sovereignty and equating the actions of Jews with that of Nazis, for instance, are both things that I disagree with. Yet the far-reaching nature, and therefore potential abuse, of the language should worry those who care about free expression.
Similar measures, like a resolution the House passed in December that "clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism," faced some opposition, with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) saying that "Any kind of criticism of Israel at all could be deemed antisemitic." This time around, however, we are not talking about a simple resolution. This time there are strings attached.
The act would require the Department of Education to use the controversial IHRA definition when enforcing anti-discrimination federal statutes in relation to educational institutions. In other words, future lawsuits and calls to stop federal funding may rely on the definition. Thus, when applied, it could be used to determine that students calling Israel an apartheid state, protesting Israeli military operations, or labeling Israel's actions as genocidal are being discriminatory and bring legal consequences for their speech.
It is because of the danger that adopting the definition poses to free expression that some Israeli human rights groups, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, have called on governments and agencies to not adopt it in the past. In a letter to representatives, the ACLU wrote, "Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. [The Antisemitism Awareness Act] is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."
Yet with tensions escalating, and as many members of Congress refrain from actually reading the bills, our legislative branch seems to be forgetting that our common inheritance in free expression is fragile. The measure is likely to pass with broad bipartisan support given that Republicans appear cohesive and a good chunk of Democrats, including the bill's 15 Democratic cosponsors, are keen on joining in.
Blinded by the moment, we may be setting dangerous precedents. Even for those who feel nauseated when reading about the protests, prudence remains a virtue, and thus, they must not forget the principles we've generationally cherished when evaluating the issues of the day. Sadly, it seems like this is exactly what's happening. In pursuit of a short-term win, Congress may be enacting laws that will eventually hinder the free exchange of ideas that our Founders envisioned.
Juan P. Villasmil is an Intercollegiate Studies Institute editorial fellow at The Spectator World.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
